He said if someone is a poor performer they should be compensated accordingly.

So, no more golden parachutes?

So what does it mean that capitalism is founded on that very idea, that everyone will do what is in their own best interest?

It means that the ideological structure of capitalism will eventually get in the way of human progress, which seems to be happening now, and needs to be replaced. The question is, will this happen through reform or revolution?

But there is an even more basic error with geoskd's premise: when machines can make most of our material needs for free, labor won't lose any value. There is an infinite demand for labor.

Maybe in the long term, but that doesn't help someone who needs to pay his rent today, not in a few centuries.

The third choice is to start your own business.

No, it isn't, because you have neither a business idea, capital, nor business skills. This is yet another example of false consciousness, a lie told by the system to vilify its victims.

The third choice is to run for office.

You will lose without backing. To get backing you must make deals. Those deals transform you into one of the two candidates, since you're now owned by the same people. This, too, is a mirage of a choice built by the system. Such illusions mask the ugly reality, which makes flaws difficult to repair. And frankly, we can't afford that anymore: we're juggling an ever-growing list of issues caused by wilful stupidity, and if it doesn't stop we are going to drop one of them on our toes again.

But if you are a dumb enough to act out alone against any of them then you either need to hope to be very lucky or should they so choose to make a point they will swat you like a fly without a second thought, the likelihood of the swatting only increases with how much publicity they will get from using you as an example.

And the reason they bother making an example out of you is because they have no power aside from fear. As you demonstrate, it's quite effective, especially once the victim starts rationalizing their perfectly natural fear of death out of misplaced shame, because at that point they'll start attacking anyone who overcomes theirs.

Only got yourself to blame, bub.

Only if you aren't familiar with the concept of false consciousness. Your job got shipped overseas, so now you can only afford imported goods. You voted for a candidate because there's only two choices and the other is outright insane. You didn't have a choice and thus are not to blame.

Simply admit you fell for the lies of a conman, join your local labour union or comparable organization, and push it ever leftward. The only thing the system wants or needs from you is your support, overt or silent, so refuse to give it unless you get something in return, besides dreams of making it rich and getting to be the oppressor yourself.

Cue ever-decreasing circle as consumers earn less and want even more for it, in the hope of compensating for their shrinking earnings, thus repeating the circle. No single tier here is to blame; we ALL are in a more abstract manner. The blame lies squarely with basic human nature and the words "I want".

And yet that nature didn't stop us from enforcing enviromental standards. Because it turns out "human nature" is just a bunch of inherited instincts that can be overruled by reason and managed by the society through regulation and ideology. The only question is whether this is done in time to save capitalism, like after WWII, or if the current crisis will be the final one.

Yeah, because there are few things a 14 year old girl wants to learn more then how to use virtualbox?

Make a script that starts the VM and have it save state at close, then Windows is just another program.

As to your suggestion that I'm a traitor or... my god... French? How dare you...

Because how is "law is what is enforced" any different from "I, for one, welcome our new whatever overlords"?

I think I might sniffle into my chocolate milk now.

Is that some kind of Parisian sex maneuver?

Anyhoo, you don't like landmines...

I don't care about landmines one way or another, I take issues with your pre-emptive surrender to any and all usurpers.

If you're going to lie to try to convince me of something, give me a little credit and make it a plausible lie.

They aren't trying to convince you, they're trying to confirm their beliefs. They're making a big show about believing absurd propositions because they think - rightly, in all likelihood - that they'll be rejected by their peer group if they deviate from its dogma, and also because they get ecstasy - feelings of transcendence - when fighting their chosen enemies. That's the downside of secularization: people transferred their religious feelings into nations, ideologies and political parties, which thus gained the power religion once had, thus explaining 20th century.

In other words, Religious Right is exactly what it says in the name. Bengie was just doing their religious "y'all sinners gonna burn in Hell" trolling duties, and simply being lazy about it.

One could argue that 'natural' intelligence developed in humans is the worst thing to ever happen to the planet's inhabitants as a whole.

One could, but one would be wrong. Developing intelligent life is the only way for Earth's biosphere to avoid complete extermination.

Law is what is enforced. And the ban on land mines is not enforced.

So does this mean it's okay for the Government to ignore the Constitution, since any violations mean the violated parts are no longer laws since they weren't upheld at that particular time?

Law is law. Perhaps criminals and traitors have somehow managed to gain temporary power and suspended the rule of law in part or entirely. That's the citizen's cue to start a resistance to liberate their country, not roll over and accept the treacherous narrative of "might makes right". Or, at the very least, stop spreading it - perhaps everyone can't be a hero who refuses to serve evil, but everyone can be lazy and stupid when serving it.

Unless, of course, you'd rather be remembered as the Vichy France than French Resistance.

Why is the ethics for an autonomous killing machine different from a non autonomous one?

Because "autonomous" means "non-manned". A drone has no dreams, hopes or an anxious family back home waiting for its return. The only thing getting hurt when one is shot down is the war budget, and even that money lost turns into delicious pork in the process.

If you don't have to worry about your own casualties, it changes the ethics of tactics - which, like it or not, matter a lot in the Age of Information - quite a bit.

To me that sounds just like another case "it happened with computers so it must be more dangerous because I do not understand computers".

It is, to Elon Musk. He's high up in the current system, and thus has little to gain and a lot to lose from any changes to status quo.

Figure out a way to raise humans so that they don't turn out bad. Then apply the same method to other neural networks.

If you don't go out of your way to abuse children, they usually turn out okay. The problem is, society is more than just a collection of individuals. A decent person still has limited personal strength and thus can give in to peer pressure, and once they have, their compliance - or at least silence - helps put pressure on others, which is how places like North Korea can persist, at least for a while. Nor can peer pressure be simply judged an unfortunate defect and eliminated from the design of any artificial intelligence, because it also helps keep various not-so-decent impulses and urges under control, and also because it's not possible to upkeep a technical civilization if you can't make any assumptions about the behaviour of someone you've not met before.

If these politicians want the problem solved,

They don't. They want to play for the cameras and if they can also get another excuse to lock down the Internet, all the better for the Lidless Eye.

These people are simply never happy as long as anyone else is.

Unfortunately there has been a trend lately on Slashdot where the editors accept a lot of stories from people linking to their own site. I guess this is acceptable in the Twitter world but doesn't match a meritocracy where users submit interesting stories instead of pumping up their page views.

I don't think the editors have a choice in the matter. Slashdot is corporate, thus it must deliver bigger numbers every quarter or be labeled a failure and discontinued. Finding a niche and delivering a steady stream of eyeballs to advertisers isn't sexy with higher-ups, because they in turn must deliver exponential growth to shareholders. But exponential growth is only possible when you're way below what the environment can support, so the staff implements random changes to be seen doing something, which in turn end up driving existing users away.

People need to understand that the Web is not the frontier anymore. Dotcom bubble came and went, and sites like Slashdot are mature (boring) businesses which simply aren't going to grow significantly anymore. Put them into maintenance mode and use their steady revenue as venture capital to fund developing new, exciting things.